Judicial Power: Federal Judges And Federal Law

The US Constitution grants the president a variety of powers while also imposing restrictions. One of these restrictions is the ability of federal judges to overrule the president's decisions. While federal judges cannot always override the president, they have done so in several instances. This raises questions about the limits of federal judges' powers and whether they can overrule federal law.

Federal judges can overrule the president's decisions

One notable example occurred in 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, where the Supreme Court ruled that a president could not override a law enacted by Congress. Subsequently, in 1952, the Supreme Court blocked President Truman's attempt to order the military to seize control of steel mills amid a strike. In another instance, the Supreme Court, in 1974, ordered President Nixon to release tapes of White House conversations pertinent to the Watergate investigation.

The ability of federal judges to overrule the president's decisions underscores the system of checks and balances inherent in the US government. This dynamic ensures that no single branch of government wields unchecked power. While federal judges do not always possess the authority to override the president, their power to do so in certain cases reinforces the independence of the judiciary and safeguards against potential abuses of power.

In contemporary politics, the dynamic between the executive branch and the judiciary has been tested on several occasions. For instance, during the Trump administration, federal judges intervened to slow down or block certain policy initiatives, such as the deportation of alleged gang members to El Salvador, despite objections from the administration. Similarly, a federal judge in Rhode Island contradicted the administration's attempt to cut off grant and loan payments, underscoring the power of the judiciary to act as a check on executive power.

In conclusion, while the president holds significant authority, federal judges can and have overruled their decisions in specific instances. This dynamic preserves the balance of power between the branches of government and reinforces the rule of law in the United States.

Judges can hold agencies/officials in civil or criminal contempt

In the United States, the Judiciary Act of 1789 conferred power on all courts to punish by fine or imprisonment, at their discretion, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before them. The abuse of this power led to the passage of the Act of 1831, which limited the power of federal courts to punish contempts to misbehaviour in the presence of the courts or near them, misbehaviour of court officers in their official capacity, and disobedience or resistance to any lawful writ, process, or order of the court.

The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to preserving order in judicial proceedings and enforcing judgments, orders, and writs. While Justice Antonin Scalia contended that federal judges have no power to initiate a prosecution for contempt, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that federal courts possess the authority to punish civil and criminal contempt—disobedience of a court order or obstruction of justice—and impose sanctions on parties or attorneys who engage in misconduct.

In practice, courts have rarely imposed contempt sanctions on federal agency officials, and when they have, the fines have been modest and compensatory or criminal in nature. The Justice Department has consistently argued that federal sovereign immunity bars contempt fines, but the judiciary has often found case-specific reasons to block them, such as in cases of government misconduct within criminal prosecutions.

While there is no suggestion that the President would prevent U.S. marshals from carrying out a judicial imprisonment order, contempt sanctions against federal officials raise prudential concerns about identifying the blameworthy official and the actions they should have taken. However, monetary liabilities incurred by federal officials in the course of their duties are typically indemnified from agency appropriations.

The US Marshals Service enforces federal court orders

The US Marshals Service is responsible for enforcing federal court orders. They are primarily responsible for locating and arresting federal suspects, managing fugitive operations, and administering criminal assets. The service also operates the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS), which is used to transport prisoners between prisons and courts, as well as carry out deportation orders. Marshals have historically been responsible for serving most federal court criminal processes, although courts have become more receptive to other law enforcement personnel serving criminal processes.

The US Marshals Service is also involved in admiralty matters, where they can be directed by a warrant or writ to arrest, attach, or garnishee vessels, property, or cargo. They are also responsible for the service of civil processes, although this can be carried out by other law enforcement personnel if they are better suited to do so. The USMS is authorized by law to charge fees for the service of process, and they must request advance payment of the estimated fees and expenses unless the litigant has been granted a waiver.

The US Marshals Service has a long history of respecting their legal obligation to enforce federal court orders. However, there have been instances of defiance of court orders, and courts do have other ways to enforce their orders if needed. For example, courts can appoint individuals other than marshals to enforce civil contempt orders, such as court security officers, probation officers, local police, or sheriffs.

A judge must uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary

The integrity and independence of the judiciary are key to the rule of law and a guarantee of a fair trial. A judge must uphold these principles in both their individual and institutional aspects. This means that a judge must be free of any improper influence, such as pressure from individual litigants, commercial interests, the media, or politicians, and must not be influenced by their self-interest. They must also ensure that their conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession, and litigants.

The state must guarantee the independence of the judiciary, which should be enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, based on facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats, or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. This includes decisions that may be unpopular or go against what an individual wanted or expected. Judges are also entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association, and assembly, but they must exercise these rights in a manner that preserves the dignity, impartiality, and independence of their office.

To uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, judges must maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and personally observe those standards. This includes complying with the law and a Code of Conduct, which may include specific canons or principles such as avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, performing duties fairly, impartially, and diligently, and refraining from political activity. Judges should also receive training in independence, integrity, and impartiality, and these principles should be addressed in continuing training programmes.

In summary, a judge must uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary by acting without fear or favour, deciding matters impartially and based on facts and law, maintaining high standards of conduct, complying with a Code of Conduct, and remaining free from any improper influences or interference. This ensures that the judiciary can function independently and impartially, providing fair and impartial justice to all.

A judge may act pro se in all legal matters

The U.S. Constitution limits the president's authority in several ways, and one of the checks on presidential power is the ability of federal judges to override the president's decisions. While federal judges cannot always override the president, they do have the power to do so in some cases. For example, in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court ruled that a president could not override a law passed by Congress.

In the United States, a judge may act pro se in all legal matters. The U.S. Judiciary Act, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, addresses the rights of self-represented litigants in several places. 28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides:

> "In all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein."

The Judicial Council of California officially advocates treating self-represented litigants fairly. The California rules allow for accommodating mistakes by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal, if the case is otherwise merited. According to a June 2012 report from U.S. Courts, 18 of 94 federal district courts authorize the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for pro se litigants, and 11 authorize the use of ADR by prisoner pro se litigants.

However, there are some limitations to a judge acting pro se. For example, a judge acting pro se may not bring a class action lawsuit, as this would require a licensed attorney. Additionally, a judge acting pro se must still adhere to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which includes canons such as the importance of disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, and the need to protect the courts from involvement in matters that may prove to be controversial.

Frequently asked questions